Poll: Australian man acquitted of rape due to Skinny Jeans
- Thread starter Mcface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He said 'average' escapist. I consider us to be part of the upper echelons of objective opinion (an oxymoron I know). We can consider ourselves free from his/her scorn for not jumping on the "OMGTEH RAPIST HAZ GOTAWAYUZ WUTHCRIM!!!!!!!!1111ONEONEONEON" bandwagon.Eponet said:
This.dogstile said:
Frankly, I find the trend for sensationalist reporting (which often completely trumps reporting, you know... the actual facts?) and the total response to it (have people really gotten this stupid in the last 10 years?) to be far more concerning than this article.
While I understand the reasons behind 'freedom of the press', surely that freedom cannot be used for the intentional misrepresentation and blatant manipulation of the facts that seem to pass for 'news' these days.
Speaking entirely for myself, I will say that I did not vote in the poll. To be honest I'd have to be on the Jury to make a fair desician. From what I'm reading the basic arguement revolves around the claims of the girl who is saying she was raped, and the specific choreography of the event. To be honest, that paticular style of jeans could very well make a specific claim of rape as in "he did this" more or less impossible.
Also understand that while I cannot speak for Australia, in the US in a criminal case we require something to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not mean "he probably did it" or even "it's really likely he did it", but a virtual definate. The issue at least by US standards thus becomes whether or not the jeans could provide a reasonable doubt as to whether it was rape given the testimony received.
Without knowing the full case and what specifically was claimed, it's impossible for me to say whether I agree or not. Truthfully I think the way the article states things is that it's going for an outrage reaction, as a lot of details are missing and it's presenting things as "he was not convicted because of the Jeans" rather than presenting the full arguement as it occured including more details on the point that there were apparently problems with the girl's testimony.
I'd also wonder about bruising and such, being forcibly held down and raped is not a gentle proposition. It goes beyond the context here, but I'm GUESSING there were no clear injuries which is why the choreography of events was being questioned.
Apologies if I missed some details, and again I don't know a whole lot about Australia's standards of proof and such... basically my point is that I don't think anyone should be getting ouraged, to me it sounds like you'd have to have been there and viewing the situation as a whole.
Also understand that while I cannot speak for Australia, in the US in a criminal case we require something to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not mean "he probably did it" or even "it's really likely he did it", but a virtual definate. The issue at least by US standards thus becomes whether or not the jeans could provide a reasonable doubt as to whether it was rape given the testimony received.
Without knowing the full case and what specifically was claimed, it's impossible for me to say whether I agree or not. Truthfully I think the way the article states things is that it's going for an outrage reaction, as a lot of details are missing and it's presenting things as "he was not convicted because of the Jeans" rather than presenting the full arguement as it occured including more details on the point that there were apparently problems with the girl's testimony.
I'd also wonder about bruising and such, being forcibly held down and raped is not a gentle proposition. It goes beyond the context here, but I'm GUESSING there were no clear injuries which is why the choreography of events was being questioned.
Apologies if I missed some details, and again I don't know a whole lot about Australia's standards of proof and such... basically my point is that I don't think anyone should be getting ouraged, to me it sounds like you'd have to have been there and viewing the situation as a whole.
Why so much outrage over this? It seems plenty of people are prepared to go off on rants purely on the basis of a biased blog post summarising a court case. Let us be clear on something: unless you are fully possessed of the facts of the case to the extent the jury would be, you are not qualified to determine his guilt, much less feel outraged about it.
This is not directed at anyone in particular, but a commentary on the issue generally.
This is not directed at anyone in particular, but a commentary on the issue generally.
Ergh, 7 pages of comments is usually too many for me, but what the hell. Look, do NONE of you trust our judicial system? You don't think perhaps sensationalist internet sites may be trying to provoke reactions to grab more readers? I doubt this is the whole story.
You guys are really easy to provoke, you know that? Look for more information before jumping the gun.
Perhaps they WERE wrong, but our justice system works VERY well, and yes, if we could eliminate incorrect verdicts, then so much the better, but thats not the way the world works kids.
EDIT:
You guys are really easy to provoke, you know that? Look for more information before jumping the gun.
Perhaps they WERE wrong, but our justice system works VERY well, and yes, if we could eliminate incorrect verdicts, then so much the better, but thats not the way the world works kids.
EDIT:
Wow, you ninja'd me. Good for you and your sensible opinionENKC said:
I could make the same statement about you and most of the other people in this thread.Mackheath said:
I'll say it again : WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT COURT-ROOM. We certainly have no idea what happened before the court-room.
Pretty much all we have is one sensationalist blog-type-post, and everyone's convinced he's guilty? What happened to 'beyond reasonable doubt'?
Some people (and I'm looking at YOU, ClunkiestTurtle, and the others like you) have even suggested resorting vigilantism. Way to uphold the law there...
I actually find the irony of people wanting to condemn a crime, by committing a crime, rather tasty and delicious.Lawyer105 said:
